1. - These five appeals, on behalf of the six accused persons, namely, Isab, Ashok, Faiyaz, Idris, Hakimuddin and Riyaz, are directed against the common order dated 27th of February, 2004, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 97/96, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Accused Isab, Ashok Kumar and Faiyaz have preferred joint appeal through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. Accused Hakimuddin has preferred two appeals; one through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur, and another through Advocate.

3. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced each accused appellants under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

4. The learned counsel for the accused appellants vehemently argued the appeal on behalf of the accused appellants on merits, and, during the course of arguments, also read/referred the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as other documentary evidence, but, in view of the overwhelming evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the accused appellants, during the course of arguments, did not challenge the, order of conviction of the accused appellants passed by the trial court and, in my considered view, the learned counsel for the accused appellants are right in not challenging the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court in view of the prosecution evidence available against the accused appellants to connect them with the crime in the present case. However, the learned counsel for the accused appellants contended that most of the accused appellants have already remained in jail for more than six years except accused Isab, who has also remained in jail for about four years and five months, therefore, their sentence of imprisonment may be reduced from seven years to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them.

5. According to the learned counsel, the accused appellants have already remained in custody as follows :

6. So far accused appellants, namely, Isab, Hakimuddin, Riyaz Ahmad, Faiyaz Ahmed and Idris, are concerned, their sentence of imprisonment was suspended by this Court in view of period of imprisonment already undergone by them and at present they are on bail.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants and no interference should be made in the order of the trial court. However, he has not disputed that the accused-appellants have already undergone the sentence of imprisonment, as per the details given by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, which have been mentioned above.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court.

9. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the accused-appellants did not press the appeals on merits and confined their arguments to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-appellants to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them, it is not necessary to refer and dispute the facts and evidence of the present case.

10. The only question involved in the present case is about reduction of sentence of imprisonment of accused-appe